Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

wiredmikey writes with word (and the following extract from a CNN report) that "Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, sent a letter to Twitter on Thursday asserting that the company is violating U.S. law by allowing groups such as Hezbollah and al Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab to use its popular online network. ... In her letter, Darshan-Leitner noted that Hezbollah and al-Shabaab are officially designated as terrorist organizations under U.S. law. She also cited a 2010 Supreme Court case — Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project — which upheld a key provision of the Patriot Act prohibiting material support to groups designated as terrorist outfits."

You can't argue that the gun isn't to blame for the death of the person who got shot with it in much the same way.

A gun has no will, therefore can have no blame.

And when it is proven that said gun is defective, you might as well be laying blame on it, for it is still a 3rd party (manufacturer) that is held accountable. Nothing is black and white when it comes to liability...doubly so with our laws today.

The terrorists air is not under US jurisdiction. The US government or US companies can choose who they want to provide a service to.

Twitter will probably not do anything until pushed -- and why do anything? If the organisations don't advocate terrorism on twitter but use it for other communication it could be a good thing -- getting some insight and so on.

Twitter will probably not do anything until pushed -- and why do anything? If the organizations don't advocate terrorism on twitter but use it for other communication it could be a good thing -- getting some insight and so on.

Although I doubt that their message (even if innocent) would fall under "good." I'll certainly agree with your point. If the posters violate the TOS, or if their posts somehow do violate laws, then Twitter is already perfectly aware of how to handle that. It just sounds to me that this particular "legal outfit" is feeling pretty smug about their little Twitter notice here.

We can all see the content of these posts. I can't read it since I'm a stereotype American... But there are plenty of people who can.

Yes Twitter is and can be used for protest and civil disobedience ^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C Terrorism.

Civil disobedience is getting arrested for refusing to leave the Mayor's office.Terrorism is killing the mayor and city council.

Civil disobedience is trespassing on corporate property.Terrorism is blowing up the house of the CEO, killing her and her family.

Civil disobedience is guerilla theater that gets you arrested for blocking traffic.Terrorism is flying a plane into the World Trade Center, or a truck bomb at the mall.

Anyone more gifted than the mentally impaired shouldn't be confused about the difference between civil disobedience and terrorism. If what you are doing is resulting in large numbers of other people dying, it isn't likely to be civil disobedience.

the keyword here is SUPPORT. Phones, mail services, SMS, etc are all fee-for-service and therefore if a terrorist uses them, he/she pays. No special "support". However Twitter (and Facebook, Gmail, etc) are FREE services, which means that the service is GIVING them a service, hence SUPPORT. If the group is identifyable, then Twitter could be liable.

If Twitter wanted to argue this, they might have to show they the services aren't really free but just paid for by everyone (including the terrorists) in other w

No, you still have to pay for ISP usage and/or electricity usage and for a computer/laptop, etc...

Paper can be used to aid terrorism since they can use it to communicate, and paper is cheap too.

and what if a church gave food to the needy around its neighborhood and one of the people it was giving free food just so happens to be a terrorist.

What if some promotional band gave away free flashlights and a terrorist used it for the wrong reasons.

Just because something is given for free and is then misused doesn't mean the person who gave it away should be liable.

Twitter etal is FREE as far as Twitter doesn't charge the user for that service. ISP costs are completely irrelevant to the issue, which concerns whether Twitter (not the ISP, power co. etc) is supporting terrorism.

Also you are say *should* (not be liable), what we are discussing is what the law says, not what should be. And yes, if a church is giving away free food, and terrorist happen to benefit, the church *could* be charged for supporting terrorism, UNDER the LAW. "should" is an entirely different issu

Well known already, and governments(along with the courts) already take ISP's to task for it. Unless there's a very specific reason not to. Here in canadaland for example, hezbollah actually hosts servers, but they're not shut down. The reasoning most people have behind this is because CSIS has taps on them. And it makes it nice and easy to run an open tap on them all the time and back fish them for information. Since they're a direct danger to Canada.

No, actually ISPs are NOT common carriers (yet). They are defined as "information services". Apparently ISPs actually *want* not to be common carriers because it means they can grab more money from customers, shape, throttle and generally violate net neutrality in ways that a common carrier would not be allowed to do.

Apparently ISPs would rather take the risk and be exposed (liable) for what its customers do in exchange for the freedoms (and abuses) that come with NOT being common carriers. But all it might take is an actual terrorist event where an ISP *is* held accountable, for ISPs to retreat back to common carrier status. Of course, they probably figure that they have Congress in their pockets so that that would never happen (i.e. they want their cake and eat it too... they want the protections of common carrier status, its non-liable features, but without the constraints that would limit their revenue generating power)

Apparently ISPs actually *want* not to be common carriers because it means they can grab more money from customers, shape, throttle and generally violate net neutrality in ways that a common carrier would not be allowed to do.

Even the ones that don't want to bone you probably don't want to be common carriers because they would have issues even running caching proxies.

But all it might take is an actual terrorist event where an ISP *is* held accountable, for ISPs to retreat back to common carrier status.

Why wait for that? Copyright infringement works just as well.

I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant. I win either way - either they're forced to obey the rules of common carriership, or I get fat stacks of cash and opened the floodgates for a million more lawsuits.

Think of all those lawsuits MAFIAA files against downloaders. Now have them file that number again against Comcast, Verizon et cetera. Bam. We just fought evil with evil.

I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant.

In the US, the ISP would rely on the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, implemented by the DMCA as s512 of Title 17 USC [chillingeffects.org] - in particular, s512(a):

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -

(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;

(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and

(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

"Service provider" is defined (s512(k)(1)(A) as:

As used in subsection (a), the term ''service provider'' means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

Whether this meets the US definition of "common carrier," I'm afraid I do not know - but a DSL access provider and the like would be aiming to rely on this to exempt them from liability for whatever the user might do.

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:

(a) does not initiate the transmission;

(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and

(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.

3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

That's not to say that no remedy is possible, though - injunctions are flavour of the month at t

Perhaps what is unclear to many is what comes along with being a common carrier. In the US, Common Carriers get (some) immunity from antitrust law. They are also able to acquire property rights by eminent domain. In exchange, they have an obligation to serve every person. That is not to say that the customers do not have to pay, but rather that the common carrier does not have the freedom to pick which customers it serves, whereas other businesses can (unless their denial of service is due to a reason covered under anti-discrimination law). Rates and policies of a common carrier are heavily regulated by governments. Common carriers are created by legislation, enacted where economic forces of the era require a controlled market in order for the service to be feasible. Common carriers have been in defense, transportation and communication, such as AT&T and USPS. In many countries, these functions become part of the government. In some ways, it can be argued that government itself is a common carrier, and that common carriers are governments.

ISPs which are not communications companies are not common carriers. Where it gets tricky is situations where a common carrier owns an ISP but claims it is a separate business and therefore not subject to the rules of common carriage. This is plainly not true in many areas where telephone companies are the only broadband available, via DSL. In other cases, there is a duopoly of broadband, through The Phone Company and The Cable Company, which rely on their Common Carrier status in related, but separate niches in order to provide services which compete. In my opinion, these are still the result of their Common Carrier status so they should be treated as such until there is a way to facilitate true competition (again) in the ISP market.

I am not a lawyer, and don't have a degree in economics or government, but I have studied all three fields at a prestigious university. I do not consider myself an expert, but rather, thoughtful and informed.

Cell phones have been used in terrorist attacks. In certain parts of Afghanistan cell phone towers have been shut down with the concept in mind that it's disrupting terrorist communication, now the Taliban forces the cell phone towers to be shut down basically to remind everyone in Afghanistan they're still around.

Throw away phones are just that, one time use, throw away phones. There is no background check to buy one, you simply need cash. As much as there is no real easy way to determine what a throw a

So the terrorists are broadcasting their messages on twitter.. and they maybe have followers or something?

Not exactly. The account for Al-Shabaab hasn't twitted yet [twitter.com] (may be they're using Direct Messages). I hope that Israeli organization is proud of itself. That Twitter account was probably the only lead the CIA had on Al-Shabaab.

And the Twitter account for Hezbollah is private, only has two followers, and seems to be under the name of some Jewish guy.https://twitter.com/#!/Hezbollah [twitter.com]

I guess Twitter could always shut down that Hezbollah account on the grounds that impersonating a terrorist organization you're no

I was helping my mother-in-law fill out the application for a US visa, and there's a hilarious section of questions of the form: Have you sold any children into sex slavery? Are you a Nazi? Have you forcibly harvested anybody's organs to sell on the black market? I'm sure the number of slave-trading kidney-stealing Nazis they catch makes up for completely wasting my (and hundreds of thousands of other people's) time.

There actually is a reason for that part of the green form. It's so that if they dig up any of those things in your past, they can say you've committed a crime on US soil (signing a false declaration). They can prosecute or deport you for committing this crime in the US, while they may not be able to do anything about something you did in the dim past on another continent.

Like when you apply for a US visa. No kidding - that is what they ask on the application form. They also want to know if you were involved in crimes against humanity during WW2 - again, no kidding. Fortunately I am an honest terrorist and crimes-against-humanity-committer, so I always answer yes to those questions.

That visa application could be the first step in the long line toward citizenship. And the U.S., like most countries, cannot expel a citizen.

However, if you sign a false declaration in the process of becoming a citizen, you can be prosecuted for that crime, stripped of your earned citizenship, and then expelled. The U.S. has done this several times, usually to grandfathers who were Nazi prison guards in their youth.

The reason the U.S. still asks is because we want to remind all those genocide-committing f

Whatever happened on that Israeli passport fraud? I remember they clones European and US passports, they went to Dubai, killed someone, Interpol was given the evidence to catch them, Mossad head practically confirmed it with a smug 'ooo-yeh' style comment but whatever happened to that?

It seems that Interpol should have had more success catching them by now?

And whatever happened to the attack by Israel against civilian ships in International waters killing 8 unarmed people? We should have them in court by no

As bad as the fundamentalist Christians are, I've never seen them worry too much about dressing "modestly" and run around calling people who don't meet their standards "whores". They usually seem to get into more political issues like pushing for teaching Creationism in schools, pushing for more wars to bring Christianity to Islamic nations, etc., but meet one on the street and you won't be able to tell by the way they're dressed that they're any different from anyone else. Just don't try to hug one of th

As bad as the fundamentalist Christians are, I've never seen them worry too much about dressing "modestly" and run around calling people who don't meet their standards "whores". [...] Of course, there are those wackos from Fred Phelps' church, but that's only a handful of really off-the-wall people, a few dozen at most in a nation of 310+ million.

Unless they're the same people who shot abortion doctors, or indeed called women whores for going to abortion clinics (with signs and with words) then there's at least a few handfuls. And if there's those few handfuls out in the open...

You aren't looking hard enough. The fundamentalist church I went to growing up required women to wear full length dresses, no make-up was allowed, and generally kept their heads covered with a scarf when in public (but that part wasn't really enforced), amongst other asinine restrictions regarding separation of genders, etc. In some of our "cousin" churches, they "make marriage vows" that explicitly state that they accept that their husbands may beat them into submission, and that they understand that's God's will and the like. Granted, I grew up in rural Tennessee, but this was pretty common through that area amongst the Pentacostal family of churches. When people say "American Taliban", I've seen it first hand.

I think you're confusing a fraction of Israel's 10% Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, with the broader community of Jews. As far as I know, the behavior to which you're referring is abhorred by a majority of Israeli Jews.

I think you're confusing a fraction of Israel's 10% Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, with the broader community of Jews. As far as I know, the behavior to which you're referring is abhorred by a majority of Israeli Jews.

But its been going on for decades with hardly any action from the government of Israel.

After all, where's the hue and cry when a non muslim is the target of this tiny minority?

Just because it's largely unreported by the mainstream media [muhajabah.com] doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We all know that "some person says something perfectly reasonable" is the world's most boring headline.

Uh... I'd hate to let facts get in the way of your ranting, but there is wide-spread protest against this behavior by Jews. Many of the protestors are Orthodox Jews no less. The Chief Rabbi of Israel has even come out publicly condemning this behavior.

For starters, one's driving the cab, while the other's riding in the back.

I think the lesson here is that religious extremism is a bad thing in general. The difference between religions is how likely they tend towards extremism based on their founding doctrines.

As well, I think there's a cultural aspect involved. American Jews and Muslims tend to be less extreme than their European/Asian counterparts. And those in the middle class are more likely to tend towards centrism than either economic extreme.

The difference between religions is how likely they tend towards extremism based on their founding doctrines.

I disagree with that. The difference between cultures is how oppressed their people are (since more oppressed people tend to lash out). The difference between religions is whether or not they've been through an enlightenment reformation phase. That's why there is likely to never be such a thing as a Methodist terrorist or a Baha'i terrorist.

Slight nit: If the religion has been through an enlightenment reformation phase, it's possible that there are remnant anti-enlightenment-reformation backlash movements.

Terrorists use twitter? Okay. Easily solution. Just ban Twitter. I mean a smart person would let the 'terrorists' congregate in the open and see if any of those fish lead you to a bigger fish or a whale but I guess just shutting Twitter down saves a lot of paperwork.

Oh wait...terrorists are now using cell phones? Better ban those as well. Lord knows that we can't possibly let the terrorists win so we all must do our part and stop using phones of any kind. Anyone caught using a cell phone should of course be sent to Gitmo and heavily surfboarded*.

Hang on now...terrorists are driving cars and using roads? Better outlaw cars and remove the roads and transportation systems. If my memory serves me correctly, the 9/11 hijackers drove to the airport that day. So by security theater logic, if there were no roads or cars that....no 9/11 happens. If only we had been prepared that day.

Terrorists are using glasses to see better? Better create an entire government division to enforce and strictly regulate corrective vision dealers. Not a licensed corrective lens dealer? Then you're going to jail as part of the war on terror.

*alternate non-torture version of waterboarding where you just beat someone in the head with a surfboard.

Fuck it, ban sand. They live their lives in sand, it must do bad things for people. Hell, ban brown people, they persecute white people. Actually, last time I was in France I noticed a certain disdain, better ban all of the Romance language countries, obviously they hate us. Germanic languages apparently too, because they were anti-American. We had a world war over that.

The only thing left for me to say is: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

I see no materials. I see them not limiting users except maybe Cuba and Iran per explicit rules, but a service not requiring too much personal information would have a hard time keeping any semianonymous group off. Slashdot would have the same problem for example.

Under the law, individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing "material support" to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. "Material support" is defined to include any "service," "training," "expert advice or assistance" or "personnel."

Ms. Darshan-Leitner, had such laws been in effect prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, it is rather likely that the organizations which requested American aid and support for the establishment of the state of Israel would have been forbidden from doing so. And perhaps, then, the state of Israel would not have been established. Now that it has, how about you stop trying to take away the American freedom which assisted your nation into coming into being.

Let's suppose I have a web site that lets people post messages to a discussion. How would I go about discovering which of them are "terrorists" according to the US government's definition, so I can exclude them? None of the "terrorist" organizations seem to have posted their membership list online.

Unless I can determine who is a member of any organization, I'll have to consider such laws as "secret laws" designed to trick me into unknowingly committing a crime. And I'll have to consider the legislative body that passed such laws my clear enemy.

One obvious conjecture is that the intent of the law was to punish anyone who hosts a public forum on any topic. After all, it means that any organization can ask one member to join my forum, and then report me to the US government. I see no defense against this other than shutting down all public forums.

I was wondering that too. It looks like in this case, the so-designated terrorist groups self-identified. From the article:

Hezbollah-controlled al-Manar television currently maintains a Twitter account with roughly 7,500 followers. Other groups considered terrorist organizations by the United States also maintain accounts. Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip, posts regularly on at least one government-controlled account.

Presumably in Ms. Darshan-Leitner's opinion, only the ones who are obviously terrorists need to be shut down. I have no idea what she is trying to accomplish from this, possibly just increase her own notoriety. From what I can see, she has no intention of actually filing a lawsuit.

So, you offer instead to block them from using this service, and drive them underground, where they would be harder to 'monitor'?

At least this way you have an idea what their arguments are for their cause, and can easily offer a counter-argument (to their current or would-be followers). Offering a counter-argument for something you have no knowledge of, and whose members / followers are not readily identified / reached is a challenge to say the least.

You have two ways of heading off potential problems -> allow an open forum where anyone can say whatever they want (no wiretapping necessary) but you have to put up with people saying things you disagree with / hate / consider morally objectionable, or have a closed one, where you have to wiretap the populace to ensure that the opinions / groups you disagree with aren't starting something. An open forum to air grievances / differing opinions, of course, tends to make a government last longer, and costs a lot less than wiretapping everything while providing better results.

Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter; strike the wrong shepherd, however, and a thousand shepherds will rise in his place. Suppression tends to work like that, like ablative armor. It works excellently at first, but through constant use begins to degrade and fail asymptotically. The US is over-quota for shepherds (they've reached their bag limit), so to speak, and are seeing the pendulum swing the other way. Yet, they insist on pushing even harder, apparently unaware of this trade-off effect.

Sure looks like it here. An Israeli organization is telling the American legal system to crack down, through Twitter, on terrorist organizations which are only minor threats to the US (and in the case of Shabab, not even a threat to Israel).

It's routine for the Americans to insist on other countries to do things for them, but they're now tolerating a Israel telling them to do something for Israel's benefit?

An old joke comes to mind about Soviet Russia and freedom of speech: In America there is freedom of speech. You can can say that your president is an idiot. Here in Soviet Russia we have the same freedom. We can say your president is an idiot, too.

If the US follows up on it, then this is not the fault of the Israelis. It will be the fault of the US for thinking it was a great idea.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, sent a letter to Twitter on Thursday asserting that the company is violating U.S. law by allowing groups such as Hezbollah and al Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab to use its popular online network

So how does the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center suggest that Twitter prevent Hezbollah and al-Shabaab from using its service?

Should Twitter require verified identities and then ban anyone with a Muslim-sounding name? Or should Twitter delete any message that contains any criticism of Israeli policy? Maybe the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center believes that there should be a greater level of surveillance internet-wide? Or maybe the Internet should be a walled garden so as to assure Israel that its enemies are unable to communicate?

What steps exactly does Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center believe that Twitter should take?

Who wants to bet that Israel is looking into the kind of telecommunications technology that allows countries like China and Syria and Iran to limit the kind of communications it doesn't like? That the next embargo on the Palestinians will be on their ability to communicate with the outside world?

Maybe they believe they have to take this step in order to ensure Israel's security. But it would be nice if they just came out and said so instead of putting it on Twitter, as if the very existence of a service that allows people to post short comments online poses an existential threat. I'm not a fan of Twitter and I don't use it but Twitter is not the problem for Israel.

No, it's not so simple. There is no "the account". There is no account in the name of "Al Qaeda".

Here's something from the article:

Hezbollah-controlled al-Manar television currently maintains a Twitter account with roughly 7,500 followers. Other groups considered terrorist organizations by the United States also maintain accounts. Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip, posts regularly on at least one government-controlled account.

It's a television station. It would be like President Obama banning Fox News' account. Is there any evidence that these Twitter accounts have been promoting terrorism or do we just take away their accounts because one country or another calls them "terrorist"?

Israel gives radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists a common cause around which to rally. Israel is an existential support to the extreme authoritarian regimes throughout the region. Israel's lightning rod behavior is materially supportive of the growth and expansion of terrorist organizations and ideology throughout the middle east. If Israel continues to flagrantly choose not to cease its existence of its own volition, it should be caused to cease to exist in the interest of eliminating the raison d'etre of so many terrorist organizations.

Look, Israel: How 'bout you stop fucking with the founding principles of this nation, and we don't complain too loudly about all the money and bombs we give you -- those come out of my goddamn paycheck. It's already tiresome enough to have to carry around a screaming brat prima donna who likes to taunt bullies and fixate on suicidal promises made by a fictional deity a few thousand years ago. The least you could do is not kick us in the kidneys while we're doing it.

1) The postal service, because they help letter bombs and the like reach their destinations2) Banks, since they store money and are responsible for the creation of new money, which might be used by a terrorist3) Cellphone makes and service providers, because they help terrorists communicate4) TV makes and news companies, since they report on terrorist attacks, which other terrorist can get ideas from5) The TSA, FBI, CIA, and so forth, because they are aiding terrorists by not catching all o

So if this law passes, next thing email will become illegal. Guns also will become illegal, airlines will get blamed for 9/11 and the internet will become illegal too?All because terrorists make use of it? Ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as blaming Twitter.

Let the GCHQ and NSA enjoy their network.
Stop making the freedom fighters think about the need to go dark and let them feel safe on the net.
Every ip, voice print, email, image, video posted is useful.

They'll hide the messages in photos of Julian Assange and trollface comics. Then, when the government tries to take down the photos, Anonymous will splatter the Internet with the images, and the Streisand effect will have been used to aid and abet terrorism. The MPAA will use this to their advantage, and we'll enter the 2nd Dark Ages.

"We in Israel really MUST insist that you Americans institute a censorship regime!"

That has to be the single most amusing phrase ever to appear unironically in the Paper of Record: Twitter terrorism. And, of course, the authority cited for this menacing trend is that ubiquitous sham community calling itself âoeterrorism experts,â

People use infrastructure. Terrorists are people. Therefore terrorists use infrastructure. Therefore we must destroy infrastructure.
You gotta love that kind of reasoning.
Pirates use infrastructure.
Illegal immigrants use infrastructure.
Yep, hawkish application of a scorched earth strategy also applies when it comes to your own GODDAM home. Let's outdo all of the above when it comes to damage done. It's like writing your name on the wall you built with other peoples poo.

Keep in mind that this was an Israeli think tank that started this. Israelis, the same folks that seem to think that terrorism isn't an acceptable response to their crimes against humanity, and aren't willing to accept any less radical responses either.

It's worth noting that they're dealing with the Second Intifada, as in not the first one. During which time they could have put this all the bed by behaving like adults and actually addressing the problems, and instead they opted to engage in some pretty sick acts.

To the Right(tm), the world is split into two parts: "good guys" and "bad guys". Every person, every nation and every non-state actor in the world can be placed in one of these two categories. All issues of morality, foreign policy and so on can be answered by identifying who, in the alleged moral dilemma, is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy".

To the Left(tm), the world is split into two parts: "oppressors" and "oppressed". Every person, every nation and every non-state actor in the world can be placed in one of these two categories. All issues of morality, foreign policy and so on can be answered by identifying who, in the alleged moral dilemma, is the "oppressor" and who is the "oppressed".

Israel is "good guys" and "oppressor", and Palestine is "bad guys" and "oppressed".

The antisemitism and antizionism (which, for the most part, is really just disguised antisemitism) here is sickening.

If it was any other country in the world (except N. Korea or China perhaps) who did this, the response would be to laugh at them and move on.

I hardly think you would be so harsh on Britain if they told twitter it was violating American laws for letting the IRA plan attacks on civilians.

But because it's Israel doing this, you need to vilify them for it.

Grow the fuck up.

Is that chip on your shoulder getting a little hard to carry yet?

This is Slashdot, a land of Libertarian-to-the-excess. Any organization and/or country which orders a limit on "free speech" or the perception thereof, including white middle class non-denominational American anti-poverty groups or something ridiculously bland and non-offensive like that, would receive the same treatment.

didn't notice any antisemitism here yet until your post. anti-israelism maybe - IF you count that hizbollah is able to communicate as anti-israelism, while it would be more appropriate to say that both parties can communicate would be being neutral to both parties - not a single comment I read said that maybe twitter should ban israel from twitter, to make it even. it's not about jews, it's about a law center from israel asking a stupid thing that twitter even can't do and which would place twitter at picki